Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Dan's latest expression of his martyr mantra included this pitiful little aside, which I found comical enough to comment upon.

Martin is a bitter man but I still love him enough to say “Stop, you will get burned” (because I was burned myself and I know the outcome). I have been called an a-hole and a Jesus freak and all sorts of profane things even here but that never stopped me from getting the word out. This group here is counter productive and hate filled and that is just fine with me, I understand it isn’t a pretty picture to those on the other side.

Dan lives in his own little world, where messages are allowed to go out but none are allowed to come in. He says as much here. He broadcasts but does not receive. When he snivels that he has been called nasty names by people he's approached, he doesn't take that as a sign he's doing a bad job of witnessing for his lord, but that he's doing a great job. In his skewed way of looking at reality, being a deliverer of the word who constantly fails and antagonizes the very people he's trying to reach is, paradoxically, a sign of success, because to him, success as a witness is not in how many souls you save, but in how much "persecution" you endure while doing it.

I suspect Dan puts a lot of stock in John 15:18. The price of dedicating your life to some illusive ideal, to the extent of alienating people with whom you could very easily get along if you were smart, civil, and knew how to hold your own in a discussion of even the most controversial topics, is clearly something that a person of Dan's pathology is willing to pay. Every time we reply to one of his posts  either with strong rebuttal, direct questions, pointing out inconsistencies, or demanding clarifications  it's easier and preferable to him to think he's simply dealing with a bunch of angry haters. It lets him feel closer to his bleeding Jesus on the cross. Which kind of indicates that, for all his talk of God and love and messages, it's all about him in the end, isn't it?

39 comments:

This dovetails rather nicely with possummomma's most recent post regarding her nanny's viewpoint on going to a second/third-world country to preach at the unconverted. No context matters, no logic matters, just if you tell people Bible verses enough times, they will eventually give in and their lives will be So Much Better(tm). Difficult to know how to get through those blinders. I don't know if Dan could ever see through his.

God is wrath and against the wicked and you my friends are the definition of the wicked in the bible. No wonder you try to debunk and refute it with such passion. I used to also when I was lost. With God’s “Amazing Grace” I’m found, don’t get me singing.

Because I love you I am here to tell you cut it out you will meet God’s wrath if you don’t. So stop already. End you little TV show and stop convincing people they will not meet God’s anger when they die. If you cared about people you would not lead them to destruction. You stop then I will. If you are here to do the devils work then I am here to do Gods work. Remember the only guarantee for us Christians here on earth are persecution, temptations and tribulations so I am not saying that “their lives will be So Much Better”. The fact is it is harder and filled with God correcting you and many days being humbled but I will say much more fulfilling and righteous. Eternal life begins here on earth and Jesus prepares you for heaven.

Some of you are alluding that I am preaching or discussing wrong and I disagree.

Fine, but you are, because you still do not understand why you haven't convinced us, because all you understand how to do is make claims, but you don't understand how to back them up. We've asked time and again for any proof of this God's existence, and time and again we've shown greater expertise than you on both scientific and Biblical topics. Ordering us to shut down our TV show doesn't impress us, and only makes you look more desperate and more like the wild-eyed, reality-challenged fanatic you are. Your continued use of logical fallacies (here it's the Appeal to Consequences) shows you just won't, and perhaps can't, listen to what others say. All you can listen to is the sound of your own voice, which you think is God's speaking through you. To us it sounds like mental illness.

Religion is all about making the religious feel "special." It rarely actually has anything to do at all with obeying some imagined god in the sky. That's one of the reasons members of certain religious cults don't like being contradicted because, when that happens, they're being reminded that they aren't special and that everyone and everything is the same. Sure, they might claim that's what they think, but they always have to add something like, "...in the eyes of God." We're all on the same fundamental level, no god is required.

"So stop already. End you little TV show and stop convincing people they will not meet God’s anger when they die."

Not only will I not stop, I'm pretty sure that you'll be helping me make some very important points.

Your "God is wrath" mentality is an insulting scare-tactic (believe or burn) that demonstrates the hypocrisy of your beliefs. A loving god wouldn't really be describable as "wrath".

Go check your apologetic script, I think that you're on page 3 now...where you shift from telling us how much god loves us, to how badly he'll fuck us up if we don't believe. What answer does your script have for the following response:

If your wrathful god does exist, he's unworthy of worship and you have sacrificed your own integrity and become morally bankrupt for advocating the rantings of a maniacal bully.

Dan,You claim to pity us. I have to tell you that as I read your vile diatribe (and that's all it is), I was almost silenced into feeling sorry for you. You're delusional and grasping to sand that is rapidly sliding through your fingers. That's the interesting thing about sand: the harder you grip it, the faster it falls. You've got all of these little "grains of sand" (statements and biblical passages), but none of them are cohesive enough to actual build any sort of castle (an argument for God). So, you'll throw your grains of sand at us. Good for you. You've tossed some sand. Rather than step-back and evaluate why your arguments are failing, you get pissy and childish. My four year old forms more cogent and convincing arguments than you. I don't say that to insult you, but rather to illustrate how jacked up your perception of reality really is.

If you want us to believe in God, give us rational, logical, duplicatable, emperical evidence. Stop appealing to the Bible. Stop appealing to emotion.Stop the name calling.Drop the self-perpetuating arrogance.If you want people to believe you have "truth", you have to be willing to examine your message and prove it. Simple as that.

God is wrath and against the wicked and you my friends are the definition of the wicked in the bible. Did you skip a few pages of your script? You went from God is love and all have the opportunity to be saved...to "you are wicked". Not only do you think God exists, but you are also operating on the presumption (a rather arrogant presumption, at that) that you can see into the souls of men and have been placed in the position of judge, jury, and executioner. *tsk, tsk* What is it that your God has to say about judging your fellow man?

Remember the only guarantee for us Christians here on earth are persecution, temptations and tribulations so I am not saying that “their lives will be So Much Better”. Are you sure you're not our Nanny's pastor?? This sounds almost verbatim what she said last night when I asked her what obstacles (as a white, female, priveledged, United States citizen) she has faced. Because you don't have any REAL problems and your life is pretty cushy, you have to appeal to spiritual and emotional victimization. How fucking sad is that? Do you not realize that there are people who are ACTUALLY BEING victimized and oppressed by the very beliefs that you are spouting? Do you think reason and logic led millions to their death throughout history? NO! That's the sole work of religious fanatacism and arrogance. Nice legacy!

"Remember the only guarantee for us Christians here on earth are persecution, temptations and tribulations...."

The problem with American fundagelical Christians is they so desperately want to be "persecuted for the Name of Christ" that they will invent "persecutions" where none exist. That's not "being faithful to God," that is childish narcissism.

If persecution was on a scale I would definitely be on the low end. I have not been beheaded for my faith as some have. I was saying the only guarantee for Christians is those things “Biblically” not the ”their lives will be So Much Better” comment.

He loves you enough to save you but if you choices are to spit in his face and go against him. Then you are wicked. Turn away from wickedness now and he will manifest himself to you.

Dan, you say repeatedly that you "love" us, and that is your motivation for doing everything you do. However, you also repeatedly state how much you "hate this life" and display almost a pathological amount of self-loathing.

What is in you that can "love" strangers who repeatedly tell you how you are totally wrong about just about everything (because really, you are) when you can't even love yourself or the only life you're 100% guaranteed to have? You're so filled with misery, by your own admission, and this entire exercise, in addition to its masturbatory nature, seems like a whole lot of "misery loves company."

Paul talked about effective preaching. He said he was a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks.

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law." -Paul

You came into an atheist forum, and you didn't become an atheist in order to dialogue with us. Paul's point is that you have to understand who you're talking to. But you don't seem to agree with Paul. You came on board and _told_ us who we were:

"There are two people that reject the bible and God. There are those that feel so guilty they have done something horribly wrong that they feel they would never be forgiven for it. Then there are those who like the lifestyle or (sin) so much that they don’t want to give it up for God or anyone." -Dan

Wrong. You didn't come here and actually _care_ who you were _really_ talking to. You assumed you knew. Above, you left out a ton of other reasons people are or become atheists. You can't even imagine the _real_ motivations behind a lot of atheism.

Unlike Paul, rather than try to listen or understand--you just tell us all what we think and who we are, and why we do what we do. You _assume_ and don't verify--and you're incorrect--again. When we try to tell you who we are (because we know ourselves, believe it or not, better than you do)--you don't listen.

Paul hands you the key to effective communication: Understand and actually get to KNOW with whom you're dialoguing. But you feel monologuing and just making up our half of the conversation is a more effective method.

How's it working for you so far?

Also, your response to Chris W, according to scripture, was deplorable. If he really is a waivering, weak young Xian--and your arguments were causing him problems, then you're response: that he is a blasphemer and probably a false convert and that the jaws of hell yawn before him, very much qualify as throwing out stumbling blocks in front of a weak brother.

"It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." -Paul

You had a chance to try to make good to someone who admitted they were seeking for truth and feeling unsure, and instead you drove a wedge and hurled negative comments at him. You didn't exactly take advantage of an opportunity there, Dan.

Your communication skills are not very good, and you're not what I would classify as a "people person." And your Bible backs me up about your mode of preaching and how _un_Biblical it really is.

You're not doing at all what the Bible indicates when it says to spread the good news. Rather than even trying to understand and reach people, you've shown yourself to be every bit as negative, argumentative, and uncommunicative as you claim everyone else is being around you.

Oddly, some of the few people Jesus ever hurled hateful negativity toward were the men and women who kept the law perfectly--the Pharisees. They kept the letter of the law, and were very proud of their accomplishments. I'm sure they never questioned their beliefs, either. But their hearts were negative and harsh--and they were judgemental and judged all people according to how well they thought they were doing by god.

The very people who strove to keep god's law best were the people Jesus condemned most as hypocrites and vipers.

You put a lot of store in a book. Interestingly, Paul didn't put much store in the written word. He kept the OT law as good as any Jew--according to his testimony; but with regard to Christ, he made it clear that no Bible was his guide:

"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

You rely on ink like the Pharasees relied on stone--and you condescend and presume and judge as well as any of them every did. Paul said it wasn't ink, but the heart.

Chris W may have been weak and waivering--but he showed _heart_, not ink.

A little humility and self-reflection might do you some good if you ever get done telling everyone else how full of pride they are.

If I were still a Xian, I'd probably have 20 more pages to go. As it is, this is plenty, I think.

When Dan talks now, I don't usually feel like responding. It is more like Jackie Chan yelling, Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

But after he said this:What about the “self proclaimed intellectuals” the bible talks about? "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works" IT can't be any plainer then that.I just had to respond.

Dan, we know the Bible says this, and it is obviously UNTRUE. Here is a small selection of some of the people who have done "abominable" works:

Business: Sir Branson, Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates. Two of those people are responsible for the largest donations to charity in the history of the planet (close to $80,000,000,000).

Science: Francis Crick and James Watson (the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, a discovery that changed everything from criminology to pharmacology), Marie Curie, Sigmund Freud, Nikolai Tesla (pioneered AC electricity which allowed for electricity in homes and the radio), Thomas Edison (who invented the light shining over your desk among countless other things).

This is only an abbreviated list, but according to the bible, none of these people can do good things. Someone is wrong here. Either the light bulb is evil and donating money to charity is evil or the Bible is wrong.

The answer is obvious. But my ability to reason tells me you will disagree.

What about the “self proclaimed intellectuals” the bible talks about? "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works" IT can't be any plainer then that.

You are all wicked, please change soon you may get hit by a truck tomorrow. Remember you are not the one in charge no matter what you say.

I want you to look at what you said above and think about something for a little while. I find myself saying this a lot lately, but, I'll say it again.

If the only way that you can defend your position is through name calling or making threats then your position is worthless.

A position that has any worth at all can be defended rationally and calmly.

If you want my advice, (I'm sure you don't, but I'll offer it anyway.) here it is:

1. Drop the persecution complex. It might make you feel better but it just makes you look like you're whining to everybody else. Think about this, if you were trying to do absolutely anything else and you found yourself not accomplishing anything, would you still think you were doing a good job. If not, then why do you feel that way here?

2. Think about why you hold this position. I doubt you hold these beleifs because you were insulted into it. Think about the reasons you believe these things instead of other things. You'll be better able to argue in favor of your beliefs if you have a good grasp of why they are your beliefs in the first place.

And, I don't mean something like, "I believe it because it's true?" Why do you think it's true? Why do you think other positions are not true? "It just is true" is not an explanation, it's a cop out for people who are unwilling to think things through.

3. This has been said before but I'll say it again; don't quote the bible. Most of the people here don't believe that the bible is any more reliable or important than any other ancient text.

If you want people to follow what the bible says you first have to prove that it is true and then you can quote it. The reason you haven't met with any success by quoting the bible is that you skipped to stage two which won't work untill you have finished stage one. Stage one is hard, I myself don't believe the bible so I will admit I doubt that you will be successfull. Still if you don't even try no one is going to take you seriously.

4. This is my last bit of advice, and I want you to take this one to heart. NO ONE IS GOING TO JUST BELIEVE SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT. A claim without support is just a claim, nothing more. Supporting your claims is hard, it actually requires work, but if you don't take your claims seriously enough to put in the work required to support them, no one else will take your claims seriously either.

Also, saying that the evidence is out there, everyone just has to go look, isn't good enough. Don't expect people to do your work for you. If you can't provide the evidence yourself people arn't going to tak you seriously enough to go look for themselves. It is your job to convince others, it is not thier job to convince themselves that you are right.

That is my advice. Given that you ignored other's advice to you, I expect you will ignore this advice as well. But, maybe it will help anyone else who is reading this blog and thinking about trying to convert us "poor fools". Still, I'm giving you some room to prove me wrong.

Remember, it is your job to convince us. Doing that WILL be hard. You shouldn't expect it not to be hard. If oyu aren't willing to put in the work that is required to convince others then think long and hard about why you are here in the first place.

I'm not asking for your justification for being here I just want you to think about it. If you are just here to put in a little effort, provoke others and bask in your perceived persecutution, then what you are doing is little more than spiritual masturbation. It's selfish, pointless, and only serves to make your religion look bad.

That's what I have to say. If I'm wrong then show me I'm wrong. As I said to someone else recently, put up or shut up.

In the past few months, I have donated over $500 to my best friend's local cat shelter, in addition to adopting a kitten with only one eye that no one else wanted. Said friend is also epileptic, and I have been by her side during numerous seizures and hospital visits (just yesterday for 5 hours, while she underwent ultrasound for a potential blood clot -- it was clear), while her own fundamentalist Christian father refuses to acknowledge her existence. Also, I have a burgeoning career, working on a documentary film among other exciting projects, and have been involved in numerous community activities.

So you are doing charity to make yourself feel good. You sure sound proud of the one called self. Don't you see this Martin? You are self absorbed and yes wicked because the Bible says so. Lets ask the bible about your charity to the kittys Luke 16:15 Because I care about you enough to let you know this, that is my motives.

Is your friend a Christian? Is her Father preventing a relationship of being unequally yoked. 2 Corinthians 6:14

So you are doing charity to make yourself feel good. You sure sound proud of the one called self. Don't you see this Martin?

And, you know this how?

Are you claiming to be psychic now? Are you practicing whitchcraft and thus can look into others heads? How could you possibly claim to know the motives of another person after only talking to them online for a little while.

This is the height of arrogance. You don't know every thought that goes through others heads. Stop pretending that you do.

Stop mistaking assumptions for knowledge. Despite what you seem to think you are not God. You don't know everything.

You keep accusing atheists of worshiping themselves. The only person I see doing that is you.

Dan. No, asstard, I don't do charity work to make myself feel good. I do it because it's a good thing to do. You wouldn't understand this, because like most Christians, you don't think any good deed is worth doing unless it scores you brownie points with your imaginary friend. A good deed being its own reward is a concept alien to your experience.

I really don't care what your book of fairy tales has to say about what I do. And no, my friend is not a Christian, which I'm sure in your sick, diseased little mind means she deserves everything she gets. For her part, she's much too decent a human being to be Christian. I guess that's just her cross to bear.

Saurian, there's no point in trying to talk to Dan intelligently. He's mentally ill and self-righteous, and won't understand you. While the rest of us are out there doing meaningful things with our lives, he gains his feelings of superiority by attacking people while claiming he "cares" about them. Of course, like most religious deviants, he has no idea what it really means to care for anyone. I hope it's working for him.

Saurian, there's no point in trying to talk to Dan intelligently. He's mentally ill and self-righteous, and won't understand you. While the rest of us are out there doing meaningful things with our lives, he gains his feelings of superiority by attacking people while claiming he "cares" about them. Of course, like most religious deviants, he has no idea what it really means to care for anyone. I hope it's working for him.

You're probably right. Still, I don't like to just leave it unchallanged when people make these stupid, arrogant, disgusting , hate filled statements like dan's.

As I said in another post to him, my posts are more for anyone who may be reading this blog and thinking about foloowing in his footsteps. I want them to understand why he's failing so miserably at reaching us poor lost souls.

Bullshit deserves to be challenged even if the person spewing it isn't paying attention.

Also, it just makes me feel better. Even if it isn't accomplishing anything.

No, he's "doing charity" because it makes other people feel good. And helps other beings who are suffering and need help. Because it's the right thing to do.

Which is more selfless and giving -- helping someone because they need help, or helping someone because you think you'll get rewarded for it later on?

As for Luke 16:15 -- "... for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." You mean like all the kudos you've been giving yourself (and perhaps others in your circle are giving you) for being so "persecuted" by all the Eeebul Atheists?

Well, where the heck was he in the 20-odd years before I "turned to wickedness"? I wasn't worth enough for him to manifest himself to me at my baptism, or my confirmation, or any of the thousands of nights that I prayed to him, earnestly believing that he would protect me from the equally invisible things that lurked in the dark shadows. I wasn't worth enough for him to manifest himself when I first began to doubt his existence. But suddenly now, after a couple of years of being comfortable with him not being there, I'll suddenly be worth his time? Bullshit. I've seen the parables; the shepherd goes out and actively retrieves the lost sheep, carrying it back on his shoulders. He doesn't hide from his flock, only to reveal himself once the lost sheep has blundered back to the fold. This is the kind of reasoning you see in abusive relationships--"this time, he's really changed. He's sobered up. If I go back to him this time, he'll really love me and he won't hit me in front of the kids." It's bull, no matter whose daddy it's referencing.

The more I read, the more it seems to me that God's "unconditional love" only exists when you don't need it anymore.

Dan said:"Is your friend a Christian? Is her Father preventing a relationship of being unequally yoked. 2 Corinthians 6:14"

Dan, you are wrong to point this verse out in this situation, but you did manage to find another biblical contradiction which I assume you will conveniently ignore after I point it out.

Is it OK to marry (or stay married to) unbelievers? Is it OK to touch them or be friends with them?*

1 Corinthians 7:12-14 says YESIf any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.*

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 says NOBe ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.*

[* from SAB]

As for this rant of Dan's:"So you are doing charity to make yourself feel good. You sure sound proud of the one called self. Don't you see this Martin? You are self absorbed and yes wicked because the Bible says so."

Dan, Martin has a desire (like many people) to do good works. And fulfilling this desire is usually satisfying. Is it wrong to be proud of yourself for helping, Dan? Is it wrong to hold your friend's hand when she is scared? Are you not proud of your children, Dan? Is it wrong to be proud of them?

Also Dan, since atheists do not subscribe to a uniform moral/ethical system, it is ignorant of you to point out "bad things" like pride. Because who has to believe pride is bad in the first place? …Certainly not an atheist.

This is a good point. I'd like to expand upon it by pointing out that, just as fat and carbs come in good and bad forms, pride also comes in good and bad forms.

Pride of achievement is legitimate. It's a hardwired reward mechanism that encourages us to pursue future goals with greater vigor.

Pride in children is also legitimate. It's a hardwired reward mechanism that encourages us to continue raising healthy, happy, productive members of society.

Pride of being, also known as narcissism or arrogance, is an illigitimate form of pride. It is an insidious notion that one deserves good things, or that the world owes someone good things, just because of who they are.

One of the greater pathologies of theism, in my estimation, is the systemmatic replacement of good forms of pride with bad forms.

A believer is admonished to attribute legitimate, real-world accomplishments to God: it wasn't the well-trained surgeon who restored a patient's health, it was God; it wasn't the athletic strength and skill of the football player who scored the touchdown, it was God; it wasn't the generosity of good people who supported a charity, it was God, working through those people. For the believer, all positive outcomes are attributed to God. In this manner, the believer is systemmatically robbed of legitimate forms of pride, and thereby bereft of incentives to pursue meaninful goals or make meaningful contributions to the world.

At the same time, of course, all negative outcomes are still expected to be assumed by the believer. The believer is regularly berated and diminished as a sinner, inherently evil, and all of these kinds of insults Dan has hurled at us and occasionally applied to himself. It's a systemmatic mechanism for beating the good form of self-esteem out of the believer and render him or her an empty vessel that can be used by the belief system as, say, a chamberpot.

That vessel is then filled with an illegitimate, undeserved form of pride: You get to join the elite group of people going to Heaven, not because of anything you have done, but because of who you are--a believer. For those who, like Dan, accept the doctrine of predestination, one's capacity to become a believer is not even subject to one's own desire to avoid Hell. Only those whom God has, for mysterious reasons, chosen and predestined to believe in him will be so fortunate. Everyone else will burn merely because God wants them to burn.

And so, good forms of pride that naturally drive people toward meaninful accomplishments in life, and foster meaninful contributions to society, are methotically subverted. These are then replaced with the bad, misdirected form of pride that Dan has been exhibiting: self-centered, narcissistic, arrogant, hypocritical, Pharisaical pride. It drives him and other believers to achieve not their own meaningful and worthwhile goals, but the imposed agenda of spreading their viral religion.

Dan has been so overrun and debilitated by this mental disease that what is left of his mind has become incontinent. No longer able to control his communcation reflexes, he rhetorically urinates and defecates upon nonbelievers and believers alike, including himself. Then, too covered by his own filth to see what is actually going on, he blames us for how dirty he feels. The incontinence continues and his filth accumulates, ever deeper and stinkier.

In the real world, the supply of filth would be subject to certain physical constraints. In Dan's imaginary world, however, the supply is inexhaustible. He's so full of it that the more he puts out, the more he can manufacture. At this piont, Dan has become a veritable pooping machine.

And he's proud of it--not because he's any good at pooping, but simply because of who he is--God's appointed pooper. God's chamberpot, full to overflowing.

Tom Foss: I wasn't worth enough for him to manifest himself when I first began to doubt his existence. But suddenly now, after a couple of years of being comfortable with him not being there, I'll suddenly be worth his time? Bullshit.

Dan has been inordinately mule-headed about ignoring all of my bullet points posted several days ago, and here he's just doing it again, ignoring #1: remember most atheists used to be Christian. Stephen told him as well: we've been where Dan is. But as I pointed out, Dan is a one-way loudspeaker. Messages go out (garbled, always, but they go out), but none are received. Let him live out his delusion of being Christianity's next great sainted martyr here in our comments. It's all he has.

So stop already. End you little TV show and stop convincing people they will not meet God’s anger when they die. If you cared about people you would not lead them to destruction. You stop then I will. If you are here to do the devils work then I am here to do Gods work.

Let the public record show: Dan has issued a threat against the production of the Atheist Experience. Do we have a religious terrorist on our hands?

We are not, of course, "here to do the devils work". We're just here to elucidate verifiable truth, something about which Dan cares very little, if at all. As we have previously explained, threats of violence are not an effective method for discovering or explaining truth.

So Dan, please take your empty threats of violence at God's imaginary hands, and credible threats of violence at your own hands, elsewhere. You don't scare us at all with the former, and you should be scaring only yourself with your utterance of the latter.

Stephen: A believer is admonished to attribute legitimate, real-world accomplishments to God: it wasn't the well-trained surgeon who restored a patient's health, it was God; it wasn't the athletic strength and skill of the football player who scored the touchdown, it was God; it wasn't the generosity of good people who supported a charity, it was God, working through those people. For the believer, all positive outcomes are attributed to God. In this manner, the believer is systemmatically robbed of legitimate forms of pride, and thereby bereft of incentives to pursue meaninful goals or make meaningful contributions to the world.

Dude, if you were any more brilliant, I'd have to have a jeweller cut you into tiny bits that I could smuggle onto the black market.

Christianity has a vested interest in human misery. You see it time and again, when believers give their tearful testimonials about how their life used to suck until They Found God. Here's a story I've told a million times: at age 18, I humored a friend by attending a non-denominational service, and listened to some chump up on stage giving the usual "I used to drink and do drugs and beat my wife until I gave my heart to Jesus" routine. All I could think to myself was, "Not only do I not need religion to tell me it's a bad thing to be a drunk, drug-addled wife-beater, but I don't particularly think I want to hang out with the kinds of people who need religion to tell them it's a bad thing to be a drunk, drug-addled wife-beater."

Religion needs people to feel hopeless and bereft of self-esteem, because what it is selling is a "hope" dependent entirely upon following the religion and its rules. Christians bestow 100% of their sense of self-worth on their belief system; without it, they have none, which is why religion is so horrible and insidious. It teaches believers self-worth and accomplishment is actually bad.

The question that is prompted, of course, is: What does Christianity have to offer a happy, well-adjusted individual? The answer is nothing. Simply nothing.

But as I pointed out, Dan is a one-way loudspeaker. Messages go out (garbled, always, but they go out), but none are received.

I think it's more that he's a polarized lens. The only things that are getting through to him are the ones that are already aligned with his point of view and prejudices. He sees "atheist" and "satanist" in the same sentence and thinks it proves his equivocation; he doesn't see that everything around it goes totally against what he's saying.

That was Peter. Legend has it that he begged to be crucified upside-down, because he felt he didn't didn't deserve to die the same way Jesus did. And Peter is held to be the first Pope, by Catholics, anyway, because of Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" )Peter means rock.)

>...something else Paul said that .... The bible as a whole is shaped very much by paul

This is what makes Paul's statement about "ink" so interesting. He's contrasting the "Word" of Christ with the Old Testament--by saying clearly that the Word of Jesus isn't a written word--but that it resides within the Xian--not externally in written form. Oddly, rather than leave it as "tables of stone"--he adds "ink"--making it clear that it's not a _written_ word in any form.

As you point out, Paul _wrote_ most of what's in the Bible. So, it seems clear that the person who authored most of the NT had no idea a Bible was going to be created using his letters--his "ink."

Paul preached and never quoted the NT--because there was no NT; and Paul didn't seem to indicate or foresee any need for one either then or in the future.

So, who, then, decided to turn Paul's letters into some eternal Word of Jesus--when Paul himself seems totally ignorant of any such plan? Somebody had to dream up the idea to produce a Bible. And if the apostles didn't know about it--who took on the authority? (As Stephen keeps, rightfully, asking.)

forgive my spelling on this but it was the counsel of nicine... They, debated many topics for a long time. So long in fact that ..... the king or whatever, was like ... Make up my mind already and ordered them to deside..... something like that ... I don't have my references handy.

Checkitontheinside,Emperor Constantine organized the First Council of Nicea in 325 CE, but as it turns out, the New Testament Canon was not one of the topics of discussion there. Many NT canons were proposed over the next several centuries and during numerous other Councils and Synods. The 27-book canon in use today was neither the first nor the last of these proposed canons. There's nothing particularly special or unique about it, except that it happens to be the one in common use today.

The issue Dan needs to consider and address is, since this particular list of books was not attributed to God in the only book he permits himself to consult for divine authority--the 1611 King James Version of the Protestant Bible--how can he justify leaping to the assumption that God wanted the Bible to be organized into that particular form?

There is simply no basis whatsoever for that assumption, within the Bible or elsewhere. When Dan says he trusts the Bible, what he is unwittingly saying is that he believes he has entrusted his eternal soul to the uninformed, completely arbitrary decisions of a group of Medieval Roman Catholic clerics, about whom he knows absolutely nothing!

Yes--I didn't mean to imply I was asking, literally, who authorized the Bible. The question was put forward as rhetorical. _People_ long after the writers were dead and gone, decided to do this on their own initiative (and, I believe, in good part in response to a character named Marcion).

The only real point I wanted to make was the one Stephen followed up with: God didn't ask, tell, or hint that such a thing was necessary or even a good idea. And I further put forward that I believe Paul was in total ignorance that his letters would be used like this--because he offers no indication of foreknowledge; and seems to disdain the idea of a written authority--based on his criticism of The Law in the text I quoted. He seemed certain that the ideas he was advocating and preaching had nothing to do with any written commands or authorizations.

But the church apparently thought it knew better than God, Jesus, or the apostles, and did this anyway. And ultimately, this means Dan's faith is in people--not the authors, not Jesus, not God, but the church leaders who opted to build a written authorization to help them cement their personal views regarding the doctrines they wanted to promote as authoritative.

And doctrine has been the main issue of debate within Xianity--even with Bible to use; so one can only imagine how many competing doctrines must have been flying during the time before anyone had nailed down a "manual" for the parishoners. The Bible was an attempt by the most powerful to promote their views, and to trample competing doctrines into the ground as unathoritative "apocrypha."

Xians who say the Bible is god's word generally have very little idea (or no idea at all) how their Bible was even put together--from what I've been exposed to.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.